Thread (5 messages) 5 messages, 3 authors, 2019-02-14

Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

From: Sergei Shtylyov <hidden>
Date: 2019-02-09 19:17:20
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-can, lkml

On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
quoted
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
cases where we are expecting to fall through.

Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
is what GCC is expecting to find.

Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3

This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
-Wimplicit-fallthrough.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
@@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
 				CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
 				CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
 		}
-	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
+		/* fall through */
   Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all.
quoted
+	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
 		/*
 		 * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
 		 * to  : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
@@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
 		netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
 		cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
 		cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
-	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
+		/* fall through */
   Again, we don;t need it here.
quoted
+	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
 		reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
 		reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
 		break;
   Ignore me, I misread the code...

MBR, Sergei
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help